Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:27 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In The Beginning ...
#1
In The Beginning ...
Not long ago evolutionists scoffed at the very first words of the Bible which state that "In the beginning God created." They, like Greek philosophers centuries ago, thought that matter had always existed and so the universe had no beginning.

But with the age of atomic energy it became known that some elements of the give off radioactivity and that if matter had always existed the process of radioactive decay would have been completed long ago. But of course, it is still going on.

One group of scientists said: "It is interesting to note that by declaring the universe had a beginning, the Bible anticipated modern science by some thousands of years." Recent Theories of the Origin and Nature of the Universe, W. E. Filmer , p. 32. (Booklet issued on 919th Ordinary General Meeting of the Victoria Institute at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, England, December 7, 1953.)

Aristotle wrote: "All dry bodies which become damp, and all damp bodies which are dried, engender animal life." Virgil believed that bees were sometimes produced from the decaying internal organs of cattle. A famous physician in the reign of Louis XIV of France wrote: "The smells which arise from the bottom of morasses produce frogs, slugs, leeches, grasses, and other things." But then came Louis Pasteur.

During the last century evolutionists believed that different forms of life came about by slowly changing into another. Giraffes got long necks by stretching higher and higher for leaves, people near the equator got tanned and then passed it on to their children. Then came Mendel and his discoveries on heridity. The orderly law of "acording to its kind" of the Genesis account.

Evidence can be subjective, wrong; but the Bible? Truth. From the start. Interesting.
Reply
#2
RE: In The Beginning ...
Who says the Universe had a beginning?

To have had a beginning there would have had to have been a time when there was no universe. As time itself was created with the universe then that is impossible.

On the other hand it is just as accurate to say that the universe has always existed, just not in the evolved state that we see today.

String theory predicts that this universe is a consequence to two colliding membranes. In which case we are simply part of a vast multiverse that has always existed.

As far as Aristotle is concerned, yes, it's amazing that so many people believed so many strange things all those years ago that we now know to be obviously false. The name Aristotle and The Bible are interchangeable in that sentence.

The Bible truth? You're deluding yourself, Denial is not a river in Egypt. After all, we all know that the entire universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure!
[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]
Reply
#3
RE: In The Beginning ...
This is a major misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory isn't the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of the universe as we know it. i.e. when it started to expand!

Of course, if Big Bang theory is also the start of time, then it is quite possible for the universe to have "always existed", simply because there is no "always" without time.
Reply
#4
RE: In The Beginning ...
Everyone knows that the universe was created by a giant multicolored strawberry in the shape of a horse that smells like chocolate and tastes like elderberry!
You can't disprove that therefore it is true.
Duh! Everyone knows that.
Reply
#5
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 6, 2008 at 11:55 pm)Daystar Wrote: The orderly law of "acording to its kind" of the Genesis account.

Evidence can be subjective, wrong; but the Bible? Truth. From the start. Interesting.

Biblical "kinds" are not the same as species ... think again!

Kyu
Reply
#6
RE: In The Beginning ...
The bible is fiction. Whether the authors intended it to be or not, its fictional.
If I write a non-fiction book thats a load of nonsense, its ficiton in the same way as that.
Reply
#7
RE: In The Beginning ...
Quote:Evidence can be subjective, wrong; but the Bible? Truth. From the start. Interesting.

Yet it's not the truth. I think we've demonstrated that over the past few days.
Reply
#8
RE: In The Beginning ...
Yes once you realize that personal expereince and scipture is not evidence, that God is far more complex and improbable than what he tries to explain and that you can't just play the "Faith" card just because you want God to exist and/or you're afraid of him. And when you realize that Pascal's Wager is not a valid argument, for because there is no evidence for ANY God, and all are highly improbable, God is just as likely to send atheists to heaven and theists to hell as the other way around.
And when you realize evolution is a scientific theory not 'only a theory'.
Perhaps then Daystar, you shall see.
Reply
#9
RE: In The Beginning ...
(November 6, 2008 at 11:55 pm)Daystar Wrote: One group of scientists said: "It is interesting to note that by declaring the universe had a beginning, the Bible anticipated modern science by some thousands of years." Recent Theories of the Origin and Nature of the Universe, W. E. Filmer , p. 32. (Booklet issued on 919th Ordinary General Meeting of the Victoria Institute at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, England, December 7, 1953.)

1953? You're serious? I'm not saying that such research is irrelevant but do you realise how much our understanding of the universe has moved in during the subsequent FIFTY FIVE years? This Filmer guy ... is he relevant? I ask this because I've done some searches and the ONLY stuff I can find on him is theological so it looks to me like he might not be the best source to quote if you're hoping to convince a bunch of secular sceptics.

Kyu
Reply
#10
RE: In The Beginning ...
Darwinian,

Science - as far as I am aware - says the Universe had a beginning, as does the Bible.

Explain how the universe couldn't have had a beginning because of time having been created with the universe. I don't understand that and would appreciate any explanation.

You say that the universe may have existed in some other form almost suggesting that it could have been the matter I mentioned in my original post?

How serious does science take the string theory of which you speak and how would that jive (or not) with the Genesis account?

You mention Aristotle and the Bible as being interchangeable in that they were both obviously false things that people believed in the past that we now know to be false and of course you would recognize the probability that in the future the same could be said for today's science, but could you point out some things that the Bible said that are now known to be false because I have never actually seen any evidence of that.

Postscript - Nice Hitchhiker’s reference. Tongue
(November 7, 2008 at 9:26 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Biblical "kinds" are not the same as species ... think again!

Okay, then, what is the difference? What are Biblical "kinds" and what are species and how do they differ?
(November 7, 2008 at 10:06 am)Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:Evidence can be subjective, wrong; but the Bible? Truth. From the start. Interesting.

Yet it's not the truth. I think we've demonstrated that over the past few days.

You have? I must have missed that. You most certainly have not!
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)